[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
jesus h god, if you go back and read everybody’s posts it looks like both of you are missing the mark.[/quote]
I don’t think so, it’s been laid out very clearly. A few claims were made, and then refuted. And then the insults and etc.
But I do know that the juice you get from these huge internet brawls are not close to being worth the squeeze. So this should probably end here. I’ve said pretty much all there is to say anyway.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
You must not have read the above…
And yes. its just you. Why? Because you amuse me.
[/quote]
Dude, just stop. Learn to admit when you are wrong. This is just sad.[/quote]
Seriously. What am I wrong about? I never argued a single thing he has spent pages trying to prove.
I do this because this is his modus operand. Move the goal post and then argue a point never made.
If you are saying I am wrong about a point that he wondered off on I don’t see your logic.
But you are probably on this, I probably need to move on from this board. There was a time when plenty of stimulating conversation could be had. Slowly but surely it seems that all the center to right leaning folks have quit showing up, probably because they are sick of realness.com links and the like.
But then again, if SMH was really tired of shouting out counter points to non existent debate he could simply put me on ignore, right. [/quote]
These are your own words JEATON: “Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage. I officially have nothing but contempt left for democrat/media complex.”
Then smh provided you with more than ample examples of the contemptuous “democrat/media complex” covering the story, the majority of which would be considered mainstream publications.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
These are your own words JEATON: “Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage. I officially have nothing but contempt left for democrat/media complex.”
Then smh provided you with more than ample examples of the contemptuous “democrat/media complex” covering the story, the majority of which would be considered mainstream publications. [/quote]
It really is exactly that simple.
SMH said,
“I don’t give a shit what your article said”
Really? Since I was the original poster and the article was the topic at hand, this little gem is quite revealing is it not.
I am going to make one last truly honest effort to address you.
I post the article for the absolute, undeniable example of liberal bias that it represents. I mention you by name because I think it would be interesting to see if you call it for what it is or if you “move the goal post” as I see you do so often.
What do you do? You move the goal post. “It’s been in the major newspapers for two years. Which gets at why print news is pretty much the only way to go.” Let’s break this out. Saying it has been in the newspapers for two years implies that it has had a constant presence in the papers for two years, which is utterly false. An honest response would have been “It was in the papers two years ago”, maybe even going on to add that it was touched on over two weeks ago by the New York Times as an example. My subsequent post of “absolutely zero mainstream coverage” is a direct quote and reference to the original article and the subsequent post and reference presented by Countingbeans. Can you perhaps see why your credibility and perceived integrity fall to zero with me when you proceed to cherry pick parts and pieces of this quote to play a misdirection game with me throughout the rest of the exchange? Honestly, if not to me then only to yourself.
Your piece de resistance is the following reference…The New York Times - Search
I check out your reference, switch to chronological order for relevance and have to wonder to myself if you are just fucking with me. The results are comical. One NY Times article from over two weeks ago with any previous mention occurring two years previous. The trial’s opening statements were made almost three weeks ago and not a word has been mentioned since by either the NY Times, ABC, CBS, or NBC. Absolutely zero.
Honestly SMH, what am I supposed to do with this? All bickering aside, if the tables were turned and I posted up this “weak” retort, how would you respond to me? At this point I am curious as to what you would do with more rope. Your first response it to accuse me of making shit up and to “learn things, then talk about them.” You claim victory and then start mocking. Well at this point, I’m just going to make sport of you.
You then go on to repeat what I had called you out on, the fact that there was one article over two weeks ago and nothing previous for two years, and somehow seem to be claiming that his is proof that I am wrong, that you have bested me and that I am an asshole. Sweet Pete, how the fuck did that just happen? How does anyone who is following this thread at this point not burst into laughter and call you out? Is it possible that your misdirection has simply tied them up and they no longer remember who said what and when?
I honestly do not now if you have picked up on the corner you have backed yourself into at this point or if you have gone fully delusional. You recycle your original reference this time attacking me with 234 results from the NY Times, totally ignoring the absolute fact that THEY HAD ONE ARTCLE ALMOST THREE WEEKS AGO AND NOTHING ELSE FOR APPROX TWO YEARS PREVIOUS. ANYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE TOPIC. How am I to address such nonsense? If I ignore it as I should, you run the the goal post three fields over and proclaim absolute victory. If I take you head on I feel like I am rolling in shit, because it makes no sense what so ever. You break out in all caps for a page of trumpeting how badly you have owned me. And this is nothing new. This is what you do. And this is why I will occasionally call you out…
The truth as I see it is not that you are ignorant or stupid. I can breeze past that non sense without a care. What truly bothers me is that you are intellectually lazy and dishonest. Not that you can’t, but that you won’t take on a subject head on without distraction or diversion. When others play your games back on you, you cry foul in an instant. When you apply them you pretend it is your right without question.
I have spent enough time on this. You can take this post for what it is, an honest attempt to reach you with as as much civility as I can muster, or you can go on claiming victory for a battle never fought. Your ball.
^ Here is all the civility I can muster:
Your article said Gosnell wasn’t being covered. It referred specifically to a particular set of news outlets.
Then you called me out (again, I will add here that if you fancy yourself my rival, you are very mistaken).
Then, I arrived and said two things (let’s not forget that you tauntingly solicited my thoughts)-- A] That the papers have covered Gosnell’s trial and indeed have been covering him for some time, which is why papers are better than TV news. There was an implicit nod to the story about lack of ABC and CNN on-air coverage; not that I could agree or disagree, because I don’t watch TV news and I don’t care nearly enough about this to go hunting for instances in which Anderson Cooper talked about Gosnell. In other words, I made a claim–a statement of fact; And B] I pointed out to you that your statement that–and I quote–Gosnell has received “absolutely zero mainstream coverage” --was nonsense. That indeed Gonsell has recieved some mainstream coverage, and much of it more extensive than the coverage he’s gotten on shitholes like Breitbart.
So, to make sure that you’re paying attention, I’m going to summarize here: I showed up because you solicited my opinion (in a very douchebag-esque manner, I’ll add), and then I offered two separate but related opinions: Gosnell has been covered by the papers, and you’re wrong when you say that he’s received absolutely zero mainstream coverage.
And in support of those two claims, I linked to stories in papers and media outlets that have not only covered Gosnell’s trial–which was all I had to do in order to prove you wrong, by the way–but have also been covering his macabre story for years, the implication of that point being that not only is this not a media cover-up, the mainstream media has been at this story years before you had any clue in the Godddamn world about it.
Those stories appeared in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, on CNN.com, and–and in case you’re wondering, this right here was my piece de resistance–AND MORE THAN 200 TIMES IN THE HUFFINGTON POST, WHICH IS THE MOST OBVIOUSLY PARTISAN MAINSTREAM, LEFT-WING NEWS OUTLET ON THE INTERNET. ALLOW THAT POINT TO SINK IN: YOU MADE A SWEEPING STATEMENT OF FACT: ABSOLUTELY ZERO MAINSTREAM COVERAGE, AFTER HAVING READ A STORY ON BREITBART THAT MADE A MUCH NARROWER CLAIM ABOUT NETWORKS. AND THEN I PROFFERED FOR YOU EVIDENCE–EVIDENCE, MIND YOU, THAT WAS BOTH IRREFUTABLE AND ODDLY NOT COMMENTED-UPON BY YOU–THAT NOT ONLY HAS GOSNELL BEEN COVERED BY MAINSTREAM OUTLETS, BUT HE’S BEEN COVERED BY HUFFPO TWICE AS OFTEN AND TWICE AS MUCH AS BY BREITBART.
See what I’m saying?
You made a statement of fact.
I disproved that statement of fact.
That is all that has happened here. As I said before, your defeat here is total. I have utterly decimated any feeble claim to credibility that you might once have justifiably made. You picked a fight and you were destroyed.
Again: I am the Roman army and I’m scattering your fallow Carthaginian plains with salt–a fact made all the more mortifying for you because this whole mess began with an unnecessary and stupid act of unprovoked taunting aggression on your part.
Every claim I’ve made in this post is true–and demonstrably so. Don’t try to struggle. Give in. I’ll even sugarcoat it for you: this one didn’t go your way.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage.
[/quote]
http://search.huffingtonpost.com/search?q=kermit+gosnell&s_it=header_form_v1
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-28/national/38090346_1_mongar-gosnell-medical-examiner
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-crime-babies-idUSTRE7215IV20110302
You were wrong. That is all. I have won, and you have lost–as clearly as night and day.
And it’s been fucking fun.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
THEY HAD ONE ARTCLE ALMOST THREE WEEKS AGO AND NOTHING ELSE FOR APPROX TWO YEARS PREVIOUS.
[/quote]
There was nothing to write. That was the legal lull between the investigation/indictment and the open of the trial. The good news outlets only write news when there’s news to write.
The point, much, much, much more importantly, is that you were clearly, verifiably, demonstrably wrong. And you were, furthermore, an asshole. Sorry, but that isn’t going to change.
Edited
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
jesus h god, if you go back and read everybody’s posts it looks like both of you are missing the mark.[/quote]
I don’t think so, it’s been laid out very clearly. A few claims were made, and then refuted. And then the insults and etc.
But I do know that the juice you get from these huge internet brawls are not close to being worth the squeeze. So this should probably end here. I’ve said pretty much all there is to say anyway.[/quote]
Laid out clearly;
-jeaton posted article about NETWORK coverage (which you later stated you didnt even care what it said)
-jeaton taunted for some reason
-you answered a question that wasnt asked- about NEWSPAPER coverage.
-idiocy ensued
yep, you showed him. or he showed you. whatevevr floats your boat.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
-you answered a question that wasnt asked- about NEWSPAPER coverage.
[/quote]
Here’s your problem.
I didn’t answer a question. I didn’t intend to answer a question. There was not question asked of me.
I very simply proffered my thoughts on the matter–that newspapers are much better than TV news, because they’ve been covering this for years.
And then that opinion was attacked.
I also made the point that the statement that there had been “absolutely zero mainstream media coverage” was wrong. It was. And I proved it as such.
So, no, I didn’t miss any marks. I offered my opinion on the matter and I took issue with a claim that had preceded my post.
And then the fighting began.
It’s not difficult to grasp.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
jesus h god, if you go back and read everybody’s posts it looks like both of you are missing the mark.[/quote]
I don’t think so, it’s been laid out very clearly. A few claims were made, and then refuted. And then the insults and etc.
But I do know that the juice you get from these huge internet brawls are not close to being worth the squeeze. So this should probably end here. I’ve said pretty much all there is to say anyway.[/quote]
Laid out clearly;
-jeaton posted article about NETWORK coverage (which you later stated you didnt even care what it said)
-jeaton taunted for some reason
-you answered a question that wasnt asked- about NEWSPAPER coverage.
-idiocy ensued
yep, you showed him. or he showed you. whatevevr floats your boat.[/quote]
To expand for just a moment on my previous post, here is my first post in this thread. It does not answer a question, though it does answer JEATON’s call–a general, taunting "what will SMH say about the MAINSTREAM MEDIA–notice, by the way, that the discussion has already, before I’ve arrived, moved far, far beyond the limited scope of network news; I work in newspaper journalism and have been known to defend some print outlets some of the time around here. I’ve never defended network news and I’ve never watched it. I was not asked to limit my response to a commentary on network news, and I was not expected to. Furthermore, JEATON made a sweeping generalization about “zero mainstream coverage” without any prompting from me whatsoever; he, in other words, was the first person in the thread to broaden the scope of the discussion. My response to him came within this context. It is, then, very much related to the theme of the thread:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s been in the major newspapers for two years. Which gets at why print news is pretty much the only way to go.[/quote]
This post was perfectly apropos of the topic at hand. It was a clear and appropriate expression of my thoughts on the matter at hand, and it was as much an expression of dislike for network news as it was an expression of support for newspapers. In other words, it didn’t even really disagree with the premise of the OP, but it was a commentary on JEATON’s tired “mainstream media” line, and it does fit into the discussion ignited by JEATON’s false premise that Gosnell had received “absolutely zero mainstream coverage.”
In other words, I offered an opinion that was entirely apropos of the OP, and a post or two later, I made the further factual claim that JEATON’s “absolutely zero” comment was nonsense. I then provided ample evidence in support of each of these two highly related points.
I was then attacked as a “moron” and a “pinhead,” and the rest is history.
So no, I didn’t miss any mark or point.
Da Man–actually, there is no way in hell that you should care enough about this to sift through the above arguments, so the short version is: I didn’t answer a question that wasn’t asked; no question was asked of me. I merely proffered one opinion that was eminently apropos of the thread’s theme, and then proffered evidence in refutation of JEATON’s claim about “absolutely zero mainstream coverage.” Note here that JEATON and not me was the one who expanded the scope of the argument beyond mere network news, first by calling on me to defend the sweeping “mainstream media” and then with the “absolutely zero” line [not that that matters, because I would have been perfectly within the boundaries of propriety to expand the scope of the argument unprompted, especially given that I don’t watch network news and don’t know anything about the “inside baseball” of that particular facet of my profession.]
And then came the insults, and my anger, and etc.
So, I made two claims. Both were correct. And that’s the story of this argument.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
-jeaton posted article about NETWORK coverage (which you later stated you didnt even care what it said)
[/quote]
The main problem here is that the article in the OP points out that a handful of major news television programs, specifically the morning and evening news programs of NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this case ON TELEVISION SINCE THE TRIAL BEGAN (bolded for emphasis, and as far as I can tell this is a true claim) and then goes on to call this a “complete blackout of news coverage” despite the fact that there are many other types of news coverage, and smh has already shown numerous times that this “compete blackout of news coverage” is untrue, evidenced by several quick internet searches that he then posted.
Then, despite the very narrow focus of the type of media coverage and companies that were not covering the story, JEATON (and the article in the OP) then made the claim that there was “zero mainstream media coverage” at all. He, and the article in the OP, drop the narrow focus of the introduction in the article and go on to make false and unwarranted claims based on a very narrow, and true statement. JEATON specifically mentioned the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and others that had nothing to do with the very narrow true statement in the article from the OP and smh then showed him that he was wrong.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
-jeaton posted article about NETWORK coverage (which you later stated you didnt even care what it said)
[/quote]
The main problem here is that the article in the OP points out that a handful of major news television programs, specifically the morning and evening news programs of NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this case ON TELEVISION SINCE THE TRIAL BEGAN (bolded for emphasis, and as far as I can tell this is a true claim) and then goes on to call this a “complete blackout of news coverage” despite the fact that there are many other types of news coverage, and smh has already shown numerous times that this “compete blackout of news coverage” is untrue, evidenced by several quick internet searches that he then posted.
Then, despite the very narrow focus of the type of media coverage and companies that were not covering the story, JEATON (and the article in the OP) then made the claim that there was “zero mainstream media coverage” at all. He, and the article in the OP, drop the narrow focus of the introduction in the article and go on to make false and unwarranted claims based on a very narrow, and true statement. JEATON specifically mentioned the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and others that had nothing to do with the very narrow true statement in the article from the OP and smh then showed him that he was wrong.[/quote]
Thank you sir. This is a much simpler version of the sprawling mess I just posted. And exactly accurate.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
-jeaton posted article about NETWORK coverage (which you later stated you didnt even care what it said)
[/quote]
The main problem here is that the article in the OP points out that a handful of major news television programs, specifically the morning and evening news programs of NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this case ON TELEVISION SINCE THE TRIAL BEGAN (bolded for emphasis, and as far as I can tell this is a true claim) and then goes on to call this a “complete blackout of news coverage” despite the fact that there are many other types of news coverage, and smh has already shown numerous times that this “compete blackout of news coverage” is untrue, evidenced by several quick internet searches that he then posted.
Then, despite the very narrow focus of the type of media coverage and companies that were not covering the story, JEATON (and the article in the OP) then made the claim that there was “zero mainstream media coverage” at all. He, and the article in the OP, drop the narrow focus of the introduction in the article and go on to make false and unwarranted claims based on a very narrow, and true statement. JEATON specifically mentioned the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and others that had nothing to do with the very narrow true statement in the article from the OP and smh then showed him that he was wrong.[/quote]
Did you perchance take the time and read the links that he posted as his proof? Let me help you
http://www.latimes.com/ktla-abortion-doctor-scissors,0,4134723.story
If you take the time to look, it is actually from KTLA New from January 20 2011… Again over two years ago and the is his irrefutable proof.
His next proof…Search CNN - Videos, Pictures, and News - CNN.com
Mostly blogs and references in blogs. Not network coverage. Blog references.
How about the so called nail in the coffin…The Huffington Post smoking gun…
Announcement that the trial is beginning on March 18. 2013. Announcement of jury selection March 5,2013. and then and then dead air all the way back to 2011.
His piece de resistance…
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/kermit+gosnell/
A NY Times article from approx three weeks before the trial and then nothing all the way back to 2011.
Does this look like overwhelming proof that he is right and that I am wrong? Honest to God. And remember, my post was about ABC NBC and CBS. I let him run with it because I suspected he would do exactly as he did.
You see, he is Quick Google McDraw with the search engine citations but he is too freaking lazy to read then and hopes that you are too. After all, did he not brag that it took all of 6 seconds to come up with then. Can you read four reference citations in six seconds?
And he does this all the freaking time. This is how that kid Jay Pierce use to send him into conniptions. He would simply read and throw SMH’s references right back in his face.
Remember, he claimed that it was ALL OVER THE NEWSPAPERS and the above the the sum total of his proof.
Please, think this out. One 2012 NY Times article in over tow years. One LA Times article that was over two years old. Some blog post references and an Jury Selection article and a First day trial note in the Huffington post is what he came up with as copious evidence that it is all over the newspapers.
Is anybody actually reading and seeing this?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Does this look like overwhelming proof that he is right and that I am wrong? [/quote]
Yes. You said “absolutely zero mainstream coverage.” A single piece in a single mainstream outlet would have sufficed in order to prove you wrong. But instead of taking the easy way out, I proffered literally hundreds.
So, yes, I am right and you are wrong. And I believe it’s beginning to become clear to you that that is not merely my opinion, but the opinion of anybody who has been watching this spat unfold.
By the way, you keep whining about the gap in coverage between 2011 and 2013. This was the time in between the investigation/grand jury/indictment and the open of the trial. It is very unlikely that much of anything substantive about this story developed over the course of that time–lawyers were preparing and dates were being set, and that is all.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage.
[/quote]
http://search.huffingtonpost.com/search?q=kermit+gosnell&s_it=header_form_v1
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-28/national/38090346_1_mongar-gosnell-medical-examiner
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-crime-babies-idUSTRE7215IV20110302
[quote]JEATON wrote:
And remember, my post was about ABC NBC and CBS.[/quote]
“Absolutely zero mainstream coverage.”
Why do you keep lying when the proof of your lies is sitting two pages back, ripe and plum and ready for the picking?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
-jeaton posted article about NETWORK coverage (which you later stated you didnt even care what it said)
[/quote]
The main problem here is that the article in the OP points out that a handful of major news television programs, specifically the morning and evening news programs of NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this case ON TELEVISION SINCE THE TRIAL BEGAN (bolded for emphasis, and as far as I can tell this is a true claim) and then goes on to call this a “complete blackout of news coverage” despite the fact that there are many other types of news coverage, and smh has already shown numerous times that this “compete blackout of news coverage” is untrue, evidenced by several quick internet searches that he then posted.
Then, despite the very narrow focus of the type of media coverage and companies that were not covering the story, JEATON (and the article in the OP) then made the claim that there was “zero mainstream media coverage” at all. He, and the article in the OP, drop the narrow focus of the introduction in the article and go on to make false and unwarranted claims based on a very narrow, and true statement. JEATON specifically mentioned the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and others that had nothing to do with the very narrow true statement in the article from the OP and smh then showed him that he was wrong.[/quote]
Did you perchance take the time and read the links that he posted as his proof? Let me help you
http://www.latimes.com/ktla-abortion-doctor-scissors,0,4134723.story
If you take the time to look, it is actually from KTLA New from January 20 2011… [/quote]
KTLA is owned by the L.A. Times’ parent company and they use KTLA news at the L.A. Times, you nitwit.
And the story is from 2011 because this story broke in 2011. Not everybody is two years late to the party, bro.
Eyes are starting to open Buttercup and you are seeing it too. Nice late minute research addendums after you phoned it in earlier and proclaimed victory.
Too bad you can’t always take a story, change the narrative, set up a strawman and go to battle with him.
Or wait, you are a reporter right. Then I guess you can.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage.
[/quote]
http://search.huffingtonpost.com/search?q=kermit+gosnell&s_it=header_form_v1
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-28/national/38090346_1_mongar-gosnell-medical-examiner
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-crime-babies-idUSTRE7215IV20110302
I’ll say this again, JEATON: I am Scipio Aemilianus and I’m sowing your Carthaginian fields sterile with salt. Everyone can see this.